Can we advance open source by sacrificing software freedom?

Can open source developers advance software freedom while still giving The Man …

This week's Directions Symposium topic is mobile Linux, so drop into the Symposium to discuss this post with Intel engineers who are contributing free software to projects like moblin.org.

The relationship of mutual benefit that exists between mobile device makers and the open source development community on which they increasingly depend presents a unique paradox. Specifically, advancing the development of free software sometimes necessitates compromises that limit software freedom, particularly when it comes to providing open-source support for technologies like DRM. Nokia open source director Ari Jaaksi shared some of his thoughts about this paradox at the Handsets World Conference in Berlin last week, where he argued in favor of finding a stronger middle-ground through communication.

Jaaksi notes that there are some important lessons that Nokia has learned from the open source community, such as the value of working upstream. Companies that are accustomed to proprietary development often tend to fork an open source project internally and then do a public code drop later in order to meet licensing obligations when they release a product. Working directly upstream with other contributors, he says, can prevent fragmentation and accelerate development.

Although he believes that companies need to adapt to and learn from the open source approach, he also thinks that the open source community should be more understanding of the challenges faced by companies and the reasons behind some their restrictive business practices.

"We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidized business models," Jaaksi said, according to BusinessWeek. "Why do we need closed vehicles? We do. Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too."

He later clarified his position in a blog entry, in which he says that building a mutual understanding could lead to the discovery of less invasive or restrictive alternatives to current industry practices. "I think it would benefit everybody if people developing open source code would understand WHY certain things are made the way they are," he wrote. "Maybe there are other reasons than stupidity and an evil mind? Trying to understand and learn would benefit both open source projects and corporate to come up with better solutions."

In the long run, that kind of collaboration could potentially have a more positive impact than principled free software absolutism. Refusing to compromise could deter adoption, whereas accommodating some of the dubious practices of companies that want to use open source would increase adoption rates, accelerate development, and gradually enlighten companies about the advantages of open technology. On the other hand, developer accommodation of practices that are antithetical to open source principles might not sufficiently encourage companies to evolve in ways that are consistent with open source principles. In many ways, this debate mirrors the controversy over the use of proprietary graphics drivers on the Linux desktop and proprietary technologies like Flash on the Internet.

Another point that is missing from this debate is the part that is played by end users. Regardless of how Nokia and open source software developers view restrictive business practices, it is pressure from the consumer that will eventually make such practices untenable. Regular users are increasingly fighting back as they become aware of the hidden costs built into locks and DRM. These mechanisms are easily circumventable, and they cease to stay relevant when they are repeatedly cracked.